Once again, we are faced with serious anomalies in the prosecution case. Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or Jodi, or indeed, any of the others, on the path. At this point, the murderer is highly likely to have been heavily bloodstained, probably scratched or having other injuries consistent with having been in a fight, almost certainly behaving in an agitated manner, and attempting to flee the scene. It is possible, once these factors are taken into consideration, that Jodi Jones was not murdered at the time all of these other people were known to be on the path, and we are required, once more, to consider the original time of Jodi leaving home as reported at 5.30pm.

The extract is said to be from Sandra Leans book No Smoke.I do not have this book, I have no way of known, if the poster has edited it - or indeed, if it this is their own take of the original.

There are inconsistences from what would appear to be, the actual facts from this case.? Anomalies by this very writer of the above?Perhaps simple errors? These simple errors however adding a crucial difference when stitched together - wrongly?Above mentions a minimum of five witnesses, "as having been ON the path at the critical time that evening".We have the two Dickies, JF, SK, "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance" "and the mystery man seen following Jodi onto the path"Firstly - which most people know, it was LK who heard the disturbance.These minimum 5 people appear to be JF, GD, DD,SK! and the mystery man. The "mystery man" seen "following Jodi" was not shown to have been on "the path" or entering it. This does however add weight to 'A' another being responsible.Neither was Jodi seen to be on the path.Nor is there any proof, of anyone following this girl, anywhere.The only 'mystery male' and female, at the time of establishing identity,shown to be on and at the entrance to said path - were the sighting of AB. Of Luke and Jodi.Written in the way it has been above - gives the distinct impression that SK whose DNA was later discovered - was on this path at the time of this murder - grossly wrong.If the extract is not, exactly how it is in the book, then the poster has made a crucial error in her work.If however it is, as the book - How could this author make such a critical mistake. When a person writes a piece of work, they go over it several times, correcting mistakes and so forth - more so before it goes to print. LK was a witness in this case, his evidence has been discussed, many times prior to No Smoke being written, both people, being prominent in this case. People whom read, posts and extracts, as above would clearly tie the DNA, the person and being at the scene (at the crucial time) together - adding substance to suspicion?A deliberate 'clanger' or simple error?This going with the first time, 'not timing' of this girl leaving at 5.30pm, to assume that the murder was less likely to have happened prior to 5.30pm What perhaps is really important to highlight here , is the minimum of time these others were most definitely on this path from those with no proof.JF and GD, clearly shown here to have been on this path for around 15mins. LK for around 10mins. Certainly no mystery man seen on this path, at any point in time and definitely no SK.

So there is no sighting of any stocky man, walking into this path behind any girl. Grossly wrong. Who we do have is LK who was cycling up this path, he did not see Luke or Jodi, yet heard a noise from behind this wall. JF and GD, again after LK, why therefore would they have seen Luke or Jodi?Interestingly here, there is no mention of any other seeing this bike at the V point, so no - one else on this path at this time?But now we are given more information, after much deliberation - that the person who claims to have seen this motor bike, unmanned at this V point, at exactly 5.15pm was not on this path. Remembering also, SL's claims about how hidden this V is, how one could walk passed it numerous times and be unaware of its existence - this of course, when given in defence of Luke's claims, of having no knowledge of this V until that night. A laddie who had walked this path, many times prior. Yet there is another 'mystery' witness, not even on this path, who has claimed to have seen this bike, at this hidden V, at no less or more than 5.15pm? The estimated TOD. Coincidently still that, this is the approx: time of LK hearing noises from behind this wall - yet saw no duo on their bike. Luke and Jodi's initials were carved into a tree, near to a broken entrance, in this wall at the Easthouses end of this path.Why would they walk down the path, if they were used to frequenting behind here, going to have a smoke of weed. It is more than likely, it is at this point they entered this woodland.This takes away any chance of being seen on this path, for having that fly smoke. Fair to assume, that whilst being seen having a fag at this age, may warrant untoward attention, smoking dope certainly would.

So again, yes and again - There is no corroborated alibi for Luke Mitchell. He was to meet Jodi from when she left her house at 4.50pm.She was murdered in a stretch of woodland that she frequented with her boyfriend.There most definitely was the timescale for this to happen.She most definitely was attacked ferociously.She was hidden in an area of unfrequented use.She was not discovered over the course of this evening which proves the latter.The determined sequence of events, show quite clearly, how quickly this girl, was sadly and horrifically silenced.

Why would the factors (in their inaccuracy) above, lean toward this murder happening at another time. Was this path not used by anyone, over the remainder of this evening?There is absolutely nothing that warrants another TOD.

The extract is said to be from Sandra Leans book No Smoke.I do not have this book, I have no way of known, if the poster has edited it - or indeed, if it this is their own take of the original.

There are inconsistences from what would appear to be, the actual facts from this case.? Anomalies by this very writer of the above?Perhaps simple errors? These simple errors however adding a crucial difference when stitched together - wrongly?Above mentions a minimum of five witnesses, "as having been ON the path at the critical time that evening".We have the two Dickies, JF, SK, "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance" "and the mystery man seen following Jodi onto the path"Firstly - which most people know, it was LK who heard the disturbance.These minimum 5 people appear to be JF, GD, DD,SK! and the mystery man. The "mystery man" seen "following Jodi" was not shown to have been on "the path" or entering it. This does however add weight to 'A' another being responsible.Neither was Jodi seen to be on the path.Nor is there any proof, of anyone following this girl, anywhere.The only 'mystery male' and female, at the time of establishing identity,shown to be on and at the entrance to said path - were the sighting of AB. Of Luke and Jodi.Written in the way it has been above - gives the distinct impression that SK whose DNA was later discovered - was on this path at the time of this murder - grossly wrong.If the extract is not, exactly how it is in the book, then the poster has made a crucial error in her work.If however it is, as the book - How could this author make such a critical mistake. When a person writes a piece of work, they go over it several times, correcting mistakes and so forth - more so before it goes to print. LK was a witness in this case, his evidence has been discussed, many times prior to No Smoke being written, both people, being prominent in this case. People whom read, posts and extracts, as above would clearly tie the DNA, the person and being at the scene (at the crucial time) together - adding substance to suspicion?A deliberate 'clanger' or simple error?This going with the first time, 'not timing' of this girl leaving at 5.30pm, to assume that the murder was less likely to have happened prior to 5.30pm What perhaps is really important to highlight here , is the minimum of time these others were most definitely on this path from those with no proof.JF and GD, clearly shown here to have been on this path for around 15mins. LK for around 10mins. Certainly no mystery man seen on this path, at any point in time and definitely no SK.

So there is no sighting of any stocky man, walking into this path behind any girl. Grossly wrong. Who we do have is LK who was cycling up this path, he did not see Luke or Jodi, yet heard a noise from behind this wall. JF and GD, again after LK, why therefore would they have seen Luke or Jodi?Interestingly here, there is no mention of any other seeing this bike at the V point, so no - one else on this path at this time?But now we are given more information, after much deliberation - that the person who claims to have seen this motor bike, unmanned at this V point, at exactly 5.15pm was not on this path. Remembering also, SL's claims about how hidden this V is, how one could walk passed it numerous times and be unaware of its existence - this of course, when given in defence of Luke's claims, of having no knowledge of this V until that night. A laddie who had walked this path, many times prior. Yet there is another 'mystery' witness, not even on this path, who has claimed to have seen this bike, at this hidden V, at no less or more than 5.15pm? The estimated TOD. Coincidently still that, this is the approx: time of LK hearing noises from behind this wall - yet saw no duo on their bike. Luke and Jodi's initials were carved into a tree, near to a broken entrance, in this wall at the Easthouses end of this path.Why would they walk down the path, if they were used to frequenting behind here, going to have a smoke of weed. It is more than likely, it is at this point they entered this woodland.This takes away any chance of being seen on this path, for having that fly smoke. Fair to assume, that whilst being seen having a fag at this age, may warrant untoward attention, smoking dope certainly would.

So again, yes and again - There is no corroborated alibi for Luke Mitchell. He was to meet Jodi from when she left her house at 4.50pm.She was murdered in a stretch of woodland that she frequented with her boyfriend.There most definitely was the timescale for this to happen.She most definitely was attacked ferociously.She was hidden in an area of unfrequented use.She was not discovered over the course of this evening which proves the latter.The determined sequence of events, show quite clearly, how quickly this girl, was sadly and horrifically silenced.

Why would the factors (in their inaccuracy) above, lean toward this murder happening at another time. Was this path not used by anyone, over the remainder of this evening?There is absolutely nothing that warrants another TOD.

Are you saying here, that the extract and Link I put up is not from any book by Sandra Lean, that it is a different piece of work altogether Nugnug?

Quote

It could be interesting to try to take the evidence in Sandra Lean's book, which is very detailed, and try to see if it's possible to tease a probable timeline/sequence of events out of it, if not actually identify who the most probable suspect is. But the book is only available in hard copy, not an eBook. The chapter on the case in her earlier book is online though, https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.co...89531?trail=15

Infamous CasesLUKE MITCHELL: PART 1 The case of Luke Mitchell On the night of June 30 th , 2003, ...

Quote

I followed this link from the IA thread, and it turns out to be a transcript of the chapter of Sandra Lean's book about the Mitchell case. So if you don't want to shell out for the book, here you are.

Just ordered this book (how many people featured in it have since confessed guilt? ) and if it does indeed make the libelous claim that S.K. was on the path at "the critical time", I'll be advising him to contact a lawyer. Might be time for Sandra to get a job.

Just ordered this book (how many people featured in it have since confessed guilt? ) and if it does indeed make the libelous claim that S.K. was on the path at "the critical time", I'll be advising him to contact a lawyer. Might be time for Sandra to get a job.